500 REVELATION represents the work as written under Domitian and even towards the close of his reign. This tradition rests on very ancient testimony, that of Irenseus, 1 but has met with no approval from critics of the present century; only the traditionalists who reject the historical interpreta- tion accept it. It is the only case in the whole range of the New Testament where criticism assigns to a writing a higher antiquity than is allowed it by tradition. Whether criticism has not been too hasty in setting aside the statement of Irenaeus will appear in the sequel. In support of the supposition that the Apocalypse was written before August 70 A.D., the chief argument adduced is that ch. xi. assumes that Jerusalem and the temple are still uninjured. Mommsen (Rom. Gesch., v. 521) has not succeeded in satisfactorily disposing of this argument. The Apocalypse is cognizant of the flight of the Jewish Christians into the country beyond Jordan towards Pella (ch. xii.); it expects the partial destruction of Jerusalem in the immediate future. 2 But this very expectation as well as the confidence that the temple would remain uninjured shows that at that time city and temple were still standing. Hence, as ch. xi. was written before August 70, most critics, assuming that the whole book dates from one and the same time, conclude that it was composed under Galba, that is, between autumn 68 and spring 69. In their view the five emperors who have fallen are Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Caligula, and Nero, therefore the reigning emperor is Galba, 3 and the reason why the author does not make antichrist (the returning Nero) immediately succeed Galba is a wish to carry on the number seven, and because " even a prophet owes some consideration to the powers that be " ; but he allows this unknown successor only a short reign, and then comes the returned Nero and the end of the world. 4 Lastly, these critics point to the fact that a false Nero appeared immediately after the death of the real Nero (Tacitus, Hist., ii. 8, 9). This position is very strong, but there are two objections to it, in the first place, it is uncertain whether Galba should be included in the list of emperors at all so eminent an authority as Mommsen is against including him, and reckons Vespasian as the sixth, and, secondly, the author of the Apocalypse thinks of a false Nero who will ally himself with the Parthians (see ch. ix. and elsewhere). Therefore his false Nero appears not to be that of Tacitus, but the one who in the last years of Vespasian found a following in the Euphrates district and was acknowledged in the reign of Titus by King Artabanus, who prepared to restore him at Rome by force of arms, but was at last surrendered by the Parthians, about 88, to Domitian (so Mommsen ; compare PERSIA, vol. xviii. p. 603). On this view the Apocalypse was written about 75-79. Thus we see that we have here two discrepant calculations (autumn 68 to spring 69 ; about 75-79) ; each has much in favour of it, but also at least one strong argument against it : against the first calculation there is the argument that the false Nero who best suits the case did not appear till about 75, while against the second cal- culation there is the argument that according to ch. xi. the destruction of Jerusalem had not yet taken place. 5 In these 1 Ireu. v. 30, 3 : i) airoK<ivfyis ov irpb woov yjiovov twpdOri, aa. crx*fibv litl TTJJ rjnerepasyeiffas, irpbs T< T'ei TTJS Aofj.tr tavou 2 The three and a half years in xi. 2, xii. 14, xiii. 5 are taken from the Apocalypse of Daniel, and no deeper meaning is to be sought in them. 8 Hildebrand regards the sixth as Vitellius (Ztsch. f. iviss. TheoL, 1874, p. 76 a?.). 4 So Reuss, Volckmar, Credner, De Wette, also Renan (Antechrist), but the last-mentioned, though he put the Apocalypse in the reign of Galba, begins the enumeration of the heads with Julius Caesar, and hence gets into difficulties. 5 The view that the Apocalypse was written between the spring of circumstances it appears perhaps best to assume that the Apocalypse was written under Galba, that is, that the con- ception and the first draught of it date from this time, but that the seventeenth chapter was afterwards revised in the last years of the reign of Vespasian, about 75- 79. Now it is to be remembered that Irenseus asserts most explicitly that it was revealed in the last years of Domitian. Such a statement is not to be simply set aside, especially when it seems to make a writing later, and not earlier, and when there is internal evidence that the book underwent revisions. Further exact investigation of the details of the Apocalypse will perhaps supply positive proofs ; at present the following can be put forward merely as an hypothesis, for which only a certain probability is claimed : the Apocalypse was written under Galba, but afterwards underwent revisions under Vespasian, about 75-79, and perhaps in Domitian's reign of terror, about 93-96 (compare what has been said above on the unity and integrity). Place of Composition Authorship. That the Apocalypse was written at some place on the west coast of Asia Minor has never, so far as known to the present writer, been doubted by any critic of note. The tradition of the church ascribes the Apocalypse to the apostle John, 6 and the Tubingen school has felt bound in this case to agree with tradition. Within the last twenty years or so the question has been much complicated by being mixed up with the question of the origin of the Fourth Gospel; all, however, agree that the book was written by a born Jew. At present the following views are maintained : (1) the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John are by the apostle John (Ebrard, Hengstenberg and his school, Hofmann and his school, Kliefoth) ; (2) the Gospel is by an unknown author, the Apocalypse is by the apostle John (Baur, Schwegler, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld) ; (3) the Gospel is by the apostle John, the Apocalypse is by a man called John, the otherwise known presbyter, who had no wish to be taken for the apostle (Liicke, Bleek, Ewald, Credner, De Wette, Neander, Reuss, Diisterdieck, Keim, Holtzmann, &c.) ; 7 (4) the Apocalypse is by another John, one of the apostle's disciples, who afterwards received the tacit approval of the apostle, so that the Revelation passed in the church as a work of the apostle (Renan) ; (5) the Apocalypse was foisted on the apostle John without his knowledge (Volckmar, &c.). Of these views the first and fourth may be summarily dismissed, the latter because Renan has not brought forward even the shadow of a proof, the former because the differences between the Apocalypse and the Gospel in language and opinions are too great to allow us to suppose that the books are by the same author. 8 It is true that on the other hand both writings have much in common, nay, even that there is a profound affinity between them, but this only proves that their authors lived in the same country, and were to some extent subject to the same intellectual influences. Even Hase, who formerly thought it possible to refer Gospel and Apocalypse to the apostle John (see his work, Die Tubinger Schule, 1855), has renounced this view. But what is to prevent us from ascribing at least the Apocalypse to the apostle 69 and August 70, hence in the beginning of Vespasian's reign, has least to recommend it. Some of the critics who have maintained it are much biased. Thus Diisterdieck regards the sixth emperor (xvii. 10) as Vespasian, the seventh, who is to remain for oily a short time, as Titus, and the eighth as Nero. But, as the book was written, according to Diisterdieck, shortly before 70, it follows that " we have here a prophecy which definitely announces certain historical events beforehand." Thus the claim of the Apocalypse to be an actual prophecy is justified, though only in one verse. 6 So Justin ; see Dial. c. Try ph., 81. 7 Some of these scholars also deny that the Gospel is by John. 8 This was observed by Dionysius of Alexandria (in Euseb., //. E., vii. 27).
